Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

Analysis of Evolutionary Content in High School Biology Textbook

고등학교 생물 교과서에서의 진화내용분석

  • Published : 2003.10.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study analyzed the evolutionary content in 13 textbooks developed from the first to the 6th high school biology curriculum, The content analysis of textbooks, which were delineated nine component, was performed on the 80 evolutionary categories, According to the result, the proportion of the total evolutionary content in textbook increased from the textbooks developed by the Ist curriculum to the textbooks developed by the 6th curriculum, but the proportion of 'main narrative' in total evolutionary content was gradually decreased. It also showed that biology curriculum and points of view of textbook writers influenced on the proportion of evolutionary contents. On the whole, the topics of analysed textbooks exhibit insufficient diversity, Any categories- 'group selection', 'gene selection', 'gaps in fossil record', 'co-evolution', 'punctuated equilibrium', 'mosaic evolution', 'place of labor in human evolution', 'human race differentiation', 'criticism of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", and 'human activities affecting evolution' - were not treated and others - 'theory of neutralism', 'theories of major episodes(excepting extinctions) found in the geologic time scale', 'sympatric speciation', 'clinal and area-effect speciation', 'polyploidy and evolution', 'gradualism' and 'evolution and origin of mammals' - were treated very lightly, the most emphasized topic was 'phylogeny in general' and 'formation of precells', 'miscellaneous' in the order of emphasis. 'Theory of natural selection' was lightly treated as just one of evolutionary theory though it should be emphasized as major theme of evolution. Also, the law of recapitulation, of which biologists doubt the validity, was discussed as an evidence of evolution in some textbooks. And the agents of genetic equilibrium disruption like genetic drift and migration were treated as of little importance. On the basis of above result, it was suggested that the textbook writers introduced the more meaningful evolutionary topics focused the theory of natural selection in explanation of evolution and evolution theory.

1차에서 6차에 이르기까지 13종의 교과서의 진화내용을 분석하였다. 9가지 성분으로 구분된 교과서의 내용분석은 80가지 진화내용 항목에 대해 이루어졌다. 분석결과 교과서에서 진화내용의 총량은 증가하였으나 총 진화내용 중 본논문내용이 차지하는 비중은 1차에서 6차 교육과정에 따라 개발된 교과서로 가며 점차 감소하였고 진화내용의 비중은 생물교육과정과 교과서 저자의 시각에 의해서도 영향을 받았다. 대체로 분석된 교과서에서 다루어진 진화주제는 다양성면에서 부족하였다. 어떤 주제 항목은- '집단선택', '유전자 선택', '화석 기록에서의 공백', '공진화', 단속 평형설', '혼합진화', '인류진화에 있어서의 노동의 위치', 인종의 차이', ''개체발생의 계통발생을 반복한다'에 대한 비판', '진화에 영향을 미치는 인간의 활동'-다루어지지 않았고 또 어떤 항목은-'중립설', '지질시대에서 발견되는 주요사건에 관한 설(멸종에 관한 내용 제외)', '동소적 종분화', '연속변이적 종분화 및 지역효과 종분화', '배수성과 진화', '점진주의', '연장류의 기원과 진화'-거의 언급되지 않았다. 가장 강조된 주제 항목은 '일반적인 계통학', '세포전 단계의 형성', '기타' 순으로 많이 강조되었다. 자연선택설은 진화의 중요 주제임에도 불구하고 여러진화설중의 하나로 다루어졌다. 또한 유전적 평형을 붕괴시키는 요인으로서 유전적 부동이나 이주 등도 소홀히 다루어지고 있었고 종분화의 속도와 관련된 주제도 거의 언급되지 않았다. 반면 신뢰성이 의심되는 발생반복설이 진화 증거의 하나로 교과서에서 제시되었다. 이 결과에 근거해 교과서 저자들이 진화와 진화설을 설명할 때 자연 선택설에 초점을 맞추어 보다 의미 있는 주제를 소개할 것을 제안한다.

Keywords

References

  1. 권혜련(1999). 진화개념 구조가 반영된 중학교 생물 프로그램이 학생의 생명관에 미치는 효과. 서울대 박사학위논문
  2. 김화현, 장남기(2002a). 고등학교 생물교용과정에서의 진화내용 분석. 한국생물교육학회지, 30(2), 114-125
  3. 김학현, 장남기(2002b). 고등학교 생물교과서에서 진화가 차지하는 비중. 한국생물교육학회지, 30(2), 158-165
  4. 전태식, 허명(1989). 광합성과 진화에 대한 학생들의 개념과 오인에 관한 연구. 한국생물교육학회지, 17, 1-4
  5. 정완호, 차희영(1994). 고등학생들의 유전과 진화에 대한 오개념. 한국과학교육화회지, 14(2), 170-183
  6. 박남이, 이길재(2000). 과학사를 이용한 진화 개념의 교수-학습 효과에 관한 연구. 한국생물교육학회지, 28(2), 85-99
  7. American Association for Advancement of Science.(1989). A Project 2061 panel report: Biolsical and health science. Washington, DC
  8. Bowler, P. J.(1989). Evolution: The History of an Idea(Revised ed.) Berkeley: University of California Press
  9. Brumby, M.(1979). Problems in Learning the Concept of Natural Selection. Journal of Biological Education, 13(2), 119-122 https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1979.9654240
  10. Cummins, C. L. et al.(1994). Evolution: Biological Education's Under-Researched Unifying Theme. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 445-448 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310502
  11. Dobzhansky, T.(1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 35, 127-129
  12. Elinson, R. P.(1987). Change in developmental patterns: Embryos of amphibians with large eggs. In RA. Raff & E.C. Raff(Eds.l. Development as an Evolutionary Process, volume 8(pp. 1-21). New York: Alan R. Liss
  13. Gould, S. J. & Eldredge, N.(1977). Punctuated equilibria : The tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology, 3, 115-151 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0094837300005224
  14. Holsti, O. R.,(1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley
  15. Krippendorff, K.(1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
  16. National Association of Biology Teachers(NABT)(1995), Statement on Teaching Evolution. Adopted by the NABT board of directors on March, 1995
  17. National Research Council (1996) National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
  18. Rutherford, F. J. & Ahlgren, A.(1990). Science for All Americans. New York: Oxford University Press
  19. Rutledge. M. L., Warden. M. A.(2000). Evolutionary Theory, the Nature of Science and High School Biology Teachers: Critical Relationships. American Biology Teacher. 62(1), 23-31 https://doi.org/10.1662/0002-7685(2000)062[0023:ETTNOS]2.0.CO;2
  20. Rosental. D. B.(1985). Evolution in high school biology textbooks: 1963-1983. Science Education, 69. 637-648 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730690506
  21. Settlage, J. J.(1994). Conceptions of Natural Selection: A Snapshot of the Sense-Making Process. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 449-57 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310503
  22. Skoog. G.(1984). The coverage of evolution in high school biology textbooks published in the 1980s. Science Education, 68(2), 117-128 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730680205
  23. Skoog. G.(1979). Topic of evolution in secondary school biology textbooks: 1900-1977. Science Education, 63, 621-640 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730630507
  24. Smith, M. U. et al.(1995).Foundational Issues in Evolution Education. Science and Education, 4(1), 23-46 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00486589
  25. Swarts. F. A.(1991). Topic and inquiry analysis of secondary school biology textbooks of the People's Republic of China, the United States of America. and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics(Doctoral dissertation. The Graduate School of the Union Institute, Cincinnati, OH, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International. 52. 4285A. (University Microfilms No.9214038)
  26. Swarts F. A., Anderson O. R., & Swetz F. J.(1994). Evolution in Secondary School Biology Textbooks of the PRC. the USA. and the Latter Stage of USSR. JRST. 31(5). 475-505
  27. Wells J.(1999). Haeckel's Embryos & Evolution: Setting the Record Straight. The American Biology Teacher, 61(5). 345-355 https://doi.org/10.2307/4450696
  28. Yager. R. E.(1983). The importance of terminology in teaching K-12 science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 577-588 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660200610